list_deployments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds minor context with 'recent' and 'tracked in ServiceNow,' but does not disclose behaviors like default ordering, pagination, or what fields are returned. This is adequate given the annotations but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single concise sentence communicates the tool's core purpose without redundant details. It is well-front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the optional filtering parameters and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks important context: it does not clarify what 'recent' means, how results are ordered, or how this tool differs from 'list_deployment_history'. The absence of an output schema does not require return-value detail, but the gap in usage context prevents a higher score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for limit, state, environment, and pipeline_sys_id. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('recent application deployments') and context ('tracked in ServiceNow'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list_deployment_history'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_deployment_history' or 'get_deployment'. There are no suggested use cases, exclusions, or context about how it differs from other deployment-related list tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.